Cobbs

Cobbs v. McGraff

Good Law
123 F. App'x 794
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 22, 2005No. 03-17245; D.C. No. CV-01-2272-SICalifornia1,603 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Lorenzo Cobbs appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective because she failed to investigate his mental health history both before advising him to plead nolo contendere and after receiving Dr. Kline’s report. He also claims he was incompetent to enter a plea. We reverse the denial of his claims and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

A. Standard of Review

Cobbs’s case is governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). Cobbs is entitled to relief under § 2254(d) if the state court’s adjudication of his petition “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Because the state courts issued no reasoned opinions, we must conduct an “independent review of the record,” to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.